IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

CALIXTO EFRAIN MARTINEZ § MIRALLES, § Plaintiff § § v. § No. 1:24-CV-01205-DAE § EXPERIAN INFORMATION § SOLUTIONS, INC., § Defendant ORDER

Before the Court are Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Opposed Motion for a Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Compel Arbitration Or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order, filed January 30, 2025 (Dkt. 26); Plaintiff’s Response, filed February 6, 2025 (Dkt. 28); and Defendants’ Reply, filed February 6, 2025 (Dkt. 290). By Text Order issued February 11, 2025, the District Court referred the motion to this Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to

(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.1 I. Background Plaintiff Calixto Efrain Martinez Miralles brings this suit against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Miralles alleges that Experian reported inaccurate credit information about him and failed to investigate the accuracy of that information, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i. Dkt. 1.2 Experian moved to compel arbitration of all claims under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act,

. Dkt. 18.

1 This case was reassigned to the Honorable Judge David A. Ezra on February 3, 2025. Dkt. 27. 2 Miralles also named Hunter Warfield, Inc. as a defendant, but subsequently dismissed him under Rule 41. Dkt. 13. The District Court terminated Warfield as a party on December 17, 2024. Dkt. 14. Experian argues that a written agreement between Miralles and Experian’s affiliate ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. contains an arbitration clause requiring the parties to adjudicate all claims in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

. After Miralles served written discovery requests and notices of deposition on Experian, Experian filed this motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration.

Experian argues that requiring it “to engage in discovery in federal court would deprive it of the benefit of the bargain it struck with Plaintiff and vitiate the terms of the parties’ agreement.” Dkt. 26. at 2. Miralles opposes the motion to stay discovery, arguing that Experian has not shown good cause. II. Analysis The Court has “broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen,

(5th Cir. 1987); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). District courts also may stay discovery under Rule 26(c) for good cause, such as finding that further discovery will impose undue burden or expense without aiding resolution of dispositive motions. “To determine whether a stay is appropriate a district court ‘must balance the harm produced by the delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.’” Bickford v. Boerne Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 5:15-CV-1146-DAE,

, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016) (quoting Feldman v. Flood,

(M.D. Fla. 1997)). The Court exercises its broad discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. The Court agrees with Experian that if the parties engage in discovery while Experian’s motion to compel arbitration is adjudicated, they will “‘forever lose’ their bargained- for rights to enjoy the advantages of arbitration.” Dkt. 26 at 4 (citation omitted). For this reason, district courts routinely grant stays of discovery pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration. Herod v. DMS Sols., Inc., No. 4:23-CV-04465,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2024) (collecting cases); Ramirez v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 4:24-CV-94-SDJ-KPJ,

, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2024); Rosales v. Coca-Cola Sw. Beverages LLC, No. EP-18-CV-361-PRM,

, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2019). Miralles identifies no discovery necessary to resolve the motion to compel arbitration, and “discovery is not needed to determine whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate because the dispute can be decided as a matter of law.” Cameron Par. Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Ins., 92 F Ath 1152, 1154 (Sth Cir. 2024) (per curiam). For these reasons, the Court stays discovery pending the District Court’s decision on Experian’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. If. Order This Magistrate Judge GRANTS Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Opposed Motion for a Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 26). Discovery is STAYED pending further order of the Court. Itis ORDERED that the Clerk remove this case from this Magistrate Judge’s docket and return it to the docket of the Honorable David A. Ezra. SIGNED on March 7, 2025. Be SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE